Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Scalise - Face of the GOP?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Is this what the party of Lincoln has turned into?

WASHINGTON — Speaker John A. Boehner on Tuesday expressed “full confidence” in Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 3 Republican leader in the House, as he sought to quell a racially charged controversy shaking the party after Mr. Scalise confirmed that he had addressed a white supremacist group a dozen years ago.

Mr. Boehner’s statement of support was his first public comment since the news broke on Monday night, a period filled with calls from some Republican and conservative commentators, as well as Democrats, for Republican leaders to shove Mr. Scalise from the leadership post. The flap roiled Republicans just as they were poised for a celebratory takeover of Congress when the new session opens next week.

“More than a decade ago, Representative Scalise made an error in judgment, and he was right to acknowledge it was wrong and inappropriate,” Mr. Boehner said. “Like many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I know Steve to be a man of high integrity and good character. He has my full confidence as our whip, and he will continue to do great and important work for all Americans.”

Indeed a firestorm has broken out and the result is likely to be declining support for the republican party. Especially in the non white minority community.

For more on this breaking story check out the following links.

Steve Scalise's attendance at 2002 white nationalists event ignites political firestorm

Scalise In 1999: I Agree With KKK Leader On ‘Conservative’ Issues But 'He Can't Get Elected'

How Do You Show Up at a David Duke Event and Not Know What It Is?

David Duke: Focus on me and House GOP leader is ‘insane’

Can a leopard change its spots?

You be the judge...

Via: Memeorandum


  1. The Southern Strategy in action.


  2. Not "Can a leopard changes its spots", but HAS a leopard changed its spots.

    Big difference!

  3. What do you think Jerry?

    I once had boss who often said "a leopard does not change its spots".

    I have always found my old boss to be right most of the time.

    1. A leopard may cover up his spots, but rarely, if ever, change them. I tend to agree with your boss.

  4. You may be right Jersey.Whether it is a case of "the Southern Strategy" at work or merely real racial bigotry on the part of an individual who can say? Me, I lean toward the latter.

  5. I guess this kind of thing is A O KKK with Boehner.

  6. I don't think Boner is a racial bigot but he is either concerned greatly with protecting party or has no balls. Maybe both.

  7. Les, I think bigotry can include the ability to look the other way and tolerate it easily , even if one does not engage in a specific practice themself.

  8. You've made the case the entire republican party is bigoted dmarks.

    1. RN said: "You've made the case the entire republican party is bigoted dmarks."

      If they know about this and don't distance themself from it and repudiate it, then perhaps there is this case. What do you think, yourself?

    2. We'll have to see how the party plays it out.

      What do I think? Some probably are, some probably aren't.

      What is important and will be defining is how the party handles this.

      We'll see.

    3. I remember years ago when David Duke ran for higher office as a Republican, I thought the party did a pretty good job of shunning him, even throwing support behind the Democrat (something I also did from afar, without a moment's hesitation).

      Now that I've seen this story, I'm not so sure they would do as good a job if the same thing happened again.

  9. Perhaps... but the Dems have similar problems. Barack H. Obama went to a rally to glorify and hear the wisdom of Minister Farrakhan... an open, unrepentant racial supremacist, and enemy to Jews everywhere.

    The abhorrent ideas of these bigots wouldn't survive long, would they Les, if we had a lot less tolerance for intolerance.

    If this isn't a wakeup call for the GOP to banish anything like this from its ranks, it might just deserve such guilt by "Pat on the back, it's ok" association.

    1. "Perhaps... but the Dems have similar problems. Barack H. Obama went to a rally to glorify and hear the wisdom of Minister Farrakhan... an open, unrepentant racial supremacist, and enemy to Jews everywhere."

      Do you actually know if Mr. Obama went "to glorify..." Mr. Farrakhan? Or merely to listen to his rhetoric to learn what he was about?

      And do you not see the difference between attending a speech to hear what the speaker says (because you have no insight into what Mr. Obama's motives were), and actually being an invited SPEAKER at a meeting of white supremacists? Does anyone actually believe the white supremacist group didn't know Scalise would be sympathetic to their cause and happy to accept their invitation?

      I do not believe all conservatives are racists, supremacists, or any "cist," but far too many of those "cists" find a comfortable home in the GOP.

      Why do you suppose that's true?

    2. Shaw, you are really downplaying Obama's roll in Farrakhan's rally. Portraying him as some sort of observer. As if he were from CNN covering it. But no, that masks that he supported it to the degree that he actually helped organize it. So... now you have the difference between someone spending a lot of time to help organize a rally to support one of America's biggest hatemongers, and someone being an invited "SPEAKER" of other hatemongers...

      There is in fact very little difference. The mitigating factor is that Obama's mistake of standing up for Farrakhan's hatred is much older than Scalise's problem. And yes, this is relevant to the topic. Very much so, unlike bringing up Benghazi and gunrunning.

      Anyway, Shaw, what you said about the GOP? Unless they purge this sort of thing from their ranks, they deserve such condemnation as you give. This had better be an issue that the 2016 Republican candidates are grilled on,

    3. I really wish references such the following ... that he supported it to the degree that he actually helped organize it. had a hot link or url accompanying the statement.

      But I guess one can do the research if really interested.

    4. Shaw, do you think the cist type of which we are speaking are limited to the republican party.

      It does appear looking at party the red team is more receptive to their presence.

    5. These are some of the articles where I found mention of Obama and Farrakhan's Million Man March. The first was in the conservative magazine "The American Spectator," where this was written by Mark Hyman in October 2008:

      Barack Obama has a Louis Farrakhan problem and not because of his endorsement from Farrakhan. Instead, it is because of Obama's more-than-passing association with Farrakhan and those who are close to the Nation of Islam leader.

      In spite of Farrakhan's long history as a racist, bigot and anti-Semite, Obama thought favorably enough of him to join Farrakhan's 1995 march on Washington, D.C. Reportedly, Obama joined Reverends Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton in organizing the march.

      Hyman qualified his report with the word "reportedly."

      according to what some say (used to express the speaker's belief that the information given is not necessarily true).

      The conservative reporter and magazine apparently had no solid evidence that Obama "organized" the march, so he had to use the qualifier, "reportedly."

      Richard Cohen of the WaPo, wrote of the Farrakhan/Obama controversy in January of 2008:

      "It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama's top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances."

      And this is from a Newsmax article from November 2008:

      In 1995, according to a profile of Obama that appeared in the Chicago Reader newspaper, Obama “took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October’s Million Man March in Washington, D.C.”

      At the time, Obama was running for the Illinois Senate from Chicago’s South Side, a seat he won after getting surrogates to challenge the signatures on nominating petitions for his chief rival, the incumbent Alice Palmer.

      The march, which fell far short of attracting the million men it advertised, was organized by Farrakhan and by Obama’s then-pastor, the anti-white black nationalist Wright.

      According to Newsmax and the article cited, Obama did NOT organize the march.

      RN, all political parties AND religions, for that matter, attract extremists. But right now, the GOP's extremists IMO, are running the show. I understand politicians have to garner support (votes) from all segments of their constituencies, but it would be nice to see more politicians denounce the extremists rather than see them as a voting bloc to be courted. Very few politicians are noted for their ability to do that.

    6. Shaw: I remembered something from the time, but the links are gone/expired. Chasing down confirmation did not pan out. You did the same thing, I will accept that the issue of his organization in it is dead.

      However, when we look at Obama's attendance of this overtly supremacist hate rally, you said we do not know his motives.

      Do you give the same sort of latitude to someone who attends a KKK rally? Of course not. The vast majority of those attending these things do so because they support it. Those who do not are involved in protests against it, or are journalists covering it. So, one must assume that Obama did in fact have a "Farrakhan Problem" if he did what people typical did at this hate rally, and there is no evidence that he came to protest or cover it as a journalist. If he didn't support this rally of hate, to glorify Farrakhan, wasn't a journalist covering it, or wasn't going to protest, then why did he go at all?

      You brought up Wright, not me. It is indeed a past problem that Obama happily attended a church for years that preached hate and racism. To his credit, he has repudiated "Rev" Wright. But the man did show appalling lack of judgement in the past.

      I agree completely with your last paragraph, Shaw. If the GOP won't risk votes to thoroughly distance themselves from these appalling individuals and views( of the KKK and those who are similar,) then, to quote "Rev" Wright, "god damn them!".

    7. Do you give the same sort of latitude to someone who attends a KKK rally?

      I do not support the goals of The Nation of Islam or Farrakhan. He's taken his followers to embrace Dianetics, a pseudo-philosophy made up by a sci-fi writer and founder of a fake religion, L.Ron Hubbard. But more to the point, as repugnant as the goals and antisemitism embraced by the NOI, and Farrakhan is, they do not rise to the level of what the KKK's history is: A terrorist organization that tortured and murdered African-Americans with impunity,from the 1870s up until 1960s ,(I believe the last lynching occurred then).

      So no, the NOI and the KKK are not equal in their crimes against humanity. The NOI is a RESULT of what the KKK visited upon African-Americans during its horrendous reign of terror in this country.

    8. I generally agree, especially when you look at the long history (even though in their current incarnations, the KKK, NOI, and Black Panthers are extremely similar).

      But I strongly disagree that the NOI is a result of the KKK.

      No, the NOI is a result of the decisions of the depraved, immoral, and vicious individuals who belong to it. They have the responsibility.

      The case that the KKK caused it (extremely tenuous) completely falls apart when you see how other individuals chose to answer the KKK and their ilk: Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King for one example.

      I suppose perhaps that the KKK caused the NOI no more and no less than they caused Dr. King? Nah, not buying it.

    9. While no one can predict precisely what Farrakhan and the NOI would do were they to rise to a position of prominence and power one can be reasonably certain from their
      rhetoric it would likely be on par with the MLK. I doubt it would be pretty.

      I do not give NOI or Farrakhan a pass on their hate rhetoric.

    10. Nor do I think the majority of black folks do either.

  10. Political statements are merely intended to put the best possible face on a bad situation, to spin an inconvenient fact and somehow make it more convenient, to misrepresent events, to obfuscate truth and confuse country bumpkins, and do damage control. Savvy followers of Washington shenanigans know better than to believe this crap (and readers of this forum are a savvy group). Sometimes the coverup is worse than the crime.

    This time ... much worse!

    1. More often than not the coverup is worse than the crime.

      It pains me what has happened and is happening to the republican party.

    2. Me too, RN. But a lot of it for me is general disillusion with party politics.

    3. I too am generally disillusioned with the lying BS that hss become so prevelant today in politics. It is why I declare no party affiliation or donate money to any party.

      Some say principles are unimportant. But when a political party's actions are in direct contradiction to its stated principles it does matter. For me anyway.

      The republican party, my party party of old that at at one time long ago I was a committee vice
      chairman in has become a party of dishonest politicians.

  11. Legs, I guess you are saying everyone should be held to every position or actions the did regardless of how long ago the happened. Like the Democrats as the originators or Jim Crowe, or the racist H Byrd.
    As demarks stated, his royal one has appeared with known agitators and racists.

    "Sometime the coverup is worse than the crime", was bengazi, gun running, or irs tampering, or a president knowingly lying to the American people to get a law passed a crime. Lotta cover up in those actions but I am sure nothing was wrong with what was done because it was done by a democrat.

  12. skudrunner, this post and thread has no mention of Obama or the alleged scandals you mention. It is however about a republican with a history that has resulted
    in his integrity being called into question.

    Do you have a comment that has relevancy to this post and comment
    thread? If you do feel free to make it.

    If you would like to submit a guest post on
    the alleged scandals of the Obama administration with supporting links please do and it will be considered. You know where to find my e-mail.

    1. I think he said it all in a rush, too. "H Byrd?" He might me anRobert Byrd, who has been dead for several years, and regardless of what he said or believed, this dead guy can't be any active baggage for today's Democrats.

      Yes, what Skud said isn't connected to this. Those Jim Crow Dems are mostly DEAD, and thus irrelevant to this. My mention of Obama and Farrakhan, was, in my view, very relevant to this situation... my one misgiving on it is that the association is not as recent as Scalise's admiration for the wizard(s) in the sheets.

      If Skud can perhaps come up with any modern-era relevant connection of Democrats to the KKK, that is in any way as serious as this one, I for one would like to see it.

    2. The thread started off with the question, can a leopard change its spots? One, I believe, could tangibly ask if the Democratic party of Woodrow Wilson (a Princetonian who the left continues to laud to today - The Woodrow Wilson Center being predominantly manned by Democrats) which segregated the federal work force and the army, FDR who wouldn't even back an anti-lynching bill for Christ sakes, LBJ who initially opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Act and only supported it when it was watered down AND who even MSNBC now concludes was a bald-faced racist, etc. has simply traded in this hard form of racism with a softer bigotry of low expectations in which black people are seen as powerless and infantile.... Maybe that's what Skud was referring to.

    3. Will said: "a softer bigotry of low expectations in which black people are seen as powerless and infantile"

      The John Myste argument for a different type of black inferiority, basically.

    4. The thread started off on Scalise, but devolved into another Obama bashing....

    5. One can argue that the devolution was a conscious redirecting of the discussion away from the post subject towards Obama in the attempt to create an equivalency. As false as it may be.

    6. Just for the record, I don't think that either party is a racist party. Just playing devil's advocate and challenging the ridiculous notion that one group of citizens is significantly more evil and sinister than the other (human attributes tending to be evenly distributed through the population).

  13. I see some similarity, bit not "equivalency", to be clear. The GOP is now leading the race on this, for sure. The race to a new low, or the current low anyway.

  14. I listened to Mark Levin just now for the first time in months. I was surprised when he lit into Scalise and his Republican defenders for a very long time. Good stuff.

  15. When is a racist no longer a racist? How do you revise history and turn past lies into plausibly deniable claims? How do you spin the words of a self-avowed Nazi sympathizer and turn him into a defender of the Faith and the American way?

    Simple! Just say it. Words alone will change reality and turn dross into gold. Heated denials can make a lovely reduction sauce. It helps to throw in a little red meat to feed hungry lynch mobs. Add a pinch of tribalism. And presto! The Devil has become your Savior:

    American Zio Media and ZioGov Vicious Attack on Family Values:

    Anyone who doubted that the American government, media and “culture” has not been completely colonized and taken over by Jewish Supremacists and their sick ideological worldview, need look no further than …

    In other words, look no further than David Duke, Steve Scalise, and their Zio-Apologist and Zio-Revisionist-in-Chief, John Boehner. Since it is no longer fashionable to be a racist (and since David Duke claims he is not nor has he ever been a racist), you can trade in your old bigotry for a real collectors’ item - the oldest scapegoat of them all - anti-Semitism! Which reminds me. Here is a comment from a notorious blogger who no longer plies these waters:

    "Yes, indeed! But they he failed to mention the nearly absolute control Jews exert upon A) the ENEMEDIA, B) the Entertainment Industry, and C) the Educational Establishment, and the hugely disproportionate influence Jews enjoy over The Courts, The Law in general, and their ever-growing numbers in the U.S. Congress. (Schumer, Boxer, Feinstein, Franken, Sanders, et al.)

    No need to name names - the memes and themes should be recognizable to all. David Duke and this voice from the Cringe Fringe appear to be reading off the same page.

    What I really can’t stand is DISHONEST BULLSHIT in the form of selective - and self-serving - readings of history taken out of context. In Will-the-Shill’s” history book, LBJ NEVER signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Law (and if he did, it was ‘watered down’ in Will-the-Shill’s estimation).

    In scud’s” history book, Robert Byrd NEVER recanted his former affiliation with the Klan. And NEVER spoke these words: “I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again.”

    In scud’s” history book, former Dixiecrats NEVER joined the Republican Party. Not Jesse Helms. Nor Strom Thurmond.

    In Will-the-Shill’s” history book, FDR NEVER led the war against Hitler. NEVER supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine. NEVER appointed a Jew to the Supreme Court and chose another to be his Secretary of the Treasury.

    If I were to accuse both of them of racism and anti-Semitism and neo-fascism – whether provable or not - it would carry the same weight in this forum as any other half-assed comment lacking attribution and substantiation. Intellectual dishonesty – you two win the prize!

    1. Legs,

      It is fine for democrats to change their spots but not republicans. Byrd recanted and LBJ signed.
      Scalise apologized but of course that is not enough. Funny how this is an issue 12 years after it happened and after the democrats got trounced in the elections.

      You do realize that the republicans picked up and additional 8% of senate seats. That is a landslide.

    2. True bigots, like leopards can't change their spots. A rational individual using reason as a guide has the capacity to do so if they sincerely desire it.

      As to landslide 2014 mid term. At 36.4% of eligible voters
      turning out, the lowest in 72
      years it is hard to classify it as a
      landslide. If the republicans
      garnered say 5% more than
      democrats even at 23.2% of
      eligible voters voting republican
      it is hard to see it as a landslide.
      Certainly it does not prove the
      majority of the country supports
      the Tea Party republican agenda. All it proves is the republicans did a better job at getting their base out that did the democrats.

      My thoughts, prepare for a 2016 backlash vote in this national presidential election.

    3. I am all for voting the whole bunch out of office and starting fresh but that won't happen.

      In 2012 57% of eligible voters voted. BHO got 50.4% of the votes to Romney 47.2% and the democrats claim it was a overwhelming victory and a mandate. That means BHO received 26% approval, hardly an overwhelming victory and mandate. More like they did a marginally better job getting out the vote.

      As to 2016, Huntsman who makes more sense than any of them. It would be nice to see a president who worked for the country and not the party.

    4. RN,
      You are right in pointing this out: A 36.4% total voter turnout speaks very poorly about the current state of American democracy. If you divide the total turnout in half, a very small minority (perhaps less than 20% of all eligible voters) decided the midterm elections: Hardly a landslide and hardly a mandate. Even more shameful is the amount of BIG DONOR MONEY spent on this sham. When voters stay away from the polls, the result is a Congress more beholden to donors than to voters. This is what Scud-the-Crud considers is a landslide: Bullshit!

      You were are also very right and spot-on in issuing this challenge to Scud-the-Crud:

      If you would like to submit a guest post on the alleged scandals of the Obama administration with supporting links please do and it will be considered. You know where to find my e-mail.

      Has Scud-the-Crud accepted your offer? Has he submitted a guest post yet? Supported by factual and verifiable data with links and substantiation? Of course not! His purpose is to come here, not as a commenter-in-good faith, but as a predator with stalking points.

      I will share here what I posted at Shaw’s forum. Please note this pattern:

      1. Scud-the-Crud hijacks every comment thread with off-topic drivel;

      2. After hijacking a comment thread, Scud-the-Crud turns himself into the focus of attention;

      3. Whenever Scud-the-Crud leaves a comment, the discussion changes from the subject you posted to drivel of his own choosing;

      4. His purpose – in setting his own agenda – is to distract, taunt, and annoy.

      One does NOT need to be crude and lewd (like Lisa and the Smut Hut Gang) to be considered offensive. Scud-the-Crud accomplishes the same being a STEALTH TROLL, and his presence is wearing thin.

    5. skud... Jon Huntsman hasn't a chance in the republican party precisely because he is, to my knowledge, a principled honest man who indeed does cares about the country and the people who inhabit it. Not just the wealthy an the corporations.

  16. I don't give Byrd as much of a free pass for being so evil minded and genocidal as to embrace the KKK in his knowing, adult life, (O) ct. But I do know he turned his back on it decades before he died. Thus I don't consider him to be a recent let alone current problem for the Dems.

  17. True bigots are like leopards, they can't change their spots.

    But yes Byrd did turn his back on it, at least in his public life.

  18. I'd give him the benefit of a doubt that he was sincere about his change.

  19. I'd like to think so. It is his public record as a public servant and Senator that matters.

    1. ...and more often than not, that reflects who he/she is.

      Two-faced, Manchurian Candidate stuff is hard to pull off, and rare.

  20. FYI: There is an interesting article at Salon.com written by the blogger who broke the Scalise story. It appears Steve Scalise has been less than truthful in his denial statements. Scalise has a history of long term associations with operatives of David Duke; and his stated reason for appearing at the David Duke event was false and misleading.

    Yup, the coverup IS worse than the crime, and I hope the controversy (and details of the coverup) don't go away anytime soon.

  21. As the cracks appear in his story his credibility, whatever amount he had, should begin to dissipate and eventually he will be toast politically.

    Haven't been paying a lot of attention to the news and TV lately. I am wondering if and when FOX News will chime in for his defense.

  22. There's huge cracks in his credibility.

    We need zero tolerance for this kind of thing. Antisemitism included. Scalise is an evil racist bastard.

  23. Hard to argue against a totally unbiased publication like The Salon.

    I do agree with Legs that the coverup is worse than the crime but would like someone to explain why only one side appears to coverup when there is so much more going on than this. Where was the extreme left when his wonderfullness used executive privileged to hide holder, silent may be a good term.

    Yes, the left has a history of tolerance as long as it is for leftists. I think half the repubs in congress are nuts which is about the same ratio as the leftists. It is all about money and who they take it from and who they give it to.

    Fair Tax anyone?


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.